kernel/linux.git/include/linux/list_lru.h, branch v6.12.80

mm: remove CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM

2024-07-10T19:14:54+00:00

CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM used to be a user-visible option for whether slab tracking is enabled. It has been default-enabled and equivalent to CONFIG_MEMCG for almost a decade. We've only grown more kernel memory accounting sites since, and there is no imaginable cgroup usecase going forward that wants to track user pages but not the multitude of user-drivable kernel allocations. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240701153148.452230-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner Acked-by: Roman Gushchin Acked-by: Michal Hocko Acked-by: Shakeel Butt Acked-by: David Hildenbrand Cc: Muchun Song Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton

mm/zswap: stop lru list shrinking when encounter warm region

2024-02-22T18:24:54+00:00

When the shrinker encounter an existing folio in swap cache, it means we are shrinking into the warmer region. We should terminate shrinking if we're in the dynamic shrinker context. This patch add LRU_STOP to support this, to avoid overshrinking. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240201-b4-zswap-invalidate-entry-v2-3-99d4084260a0@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou Acked-by: Johannes Weiner Acked-by: Nhat Pham Reviewed-by: Yosry Ahmed Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton

mm/list_lru: remove list_lru_putback()

2024-02-22T18:24:42+00:00

Since the only user zswap_lru_putback() has gone, remove list_lru_putback() too. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240126-zswap-writeback-race-v2-3-b10479847099@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou Acked-by: Yosry Ahmed Cc: Chris Li Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Nhat Pham Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton

mm: list_lru: remove unused macro list_lru_init_key()

2024-02-22T00:00:02+00:00

list_lru_init_key() isn't used by anyone, remove it to clean up. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20231228062715.338672-2-haifeng.xu@shopee.com Signed-off-by: Haifeng Xu Acked-by: Roman Gushchin Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Shakeel Butt Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton

list_lru: allow explicit memcg and NUMA node selection

2023-12-12T18:57:01+00:00

Patch series "workload-specific and memory pressure-driven zswap writeback", v8. There are currently several issues with zswap writeback: 1. There is only a single global LRU for zswap, making it impossible to perform worload-specific shrinking - an memcg under memory pressure cannot determine which pages in the pool it owns, and often ends up writing pages from other memcgs. This issue has been previously observed in practice and mitigated by simply disabling memcg-initiated shrinking: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230530232435.3097106-1-nphamcs@gmail.com/T/#u But this solution leaves a lot to be desired, as we still do not have an avenue for an memcg to free up its own memory locked up in the zswap pool. 2. We only shrink the zswap pool when the user-defined limit is hit. This means that if we set the limit too high, cold data that are unlikely to be used again will reside in the pool, wasting precious memory. It is hard to predict how much zswap space will be needed ahead of time, as this depends on the workload (specifically, on factors such as memory access patterns and compressibility of the memory pages). This patch series solves these issues by separating the global zswap LRU into per-memcg and per-NUMA LRUs, and performs workload-specific (i.e memcg- and NUMA-aware) zswap writeback under memory pressure. The new shrinker does not have any parameter that must be tuned by the user, and can be opted in or out on a per-memcg basis. As a proof of concept, we ran the following synthetic benchmark: build the linux kernel in a memory-limited cgroup, and allocate some cold data in tmpfs to see if the shrinker could write them out and improved the overall performance. Depending on the amount of cold data generated, we observe from 14% to 35% reduction in kernel CPU time used in the kernel builds. This patch (of 6): The interface of list_lru is based on the assumption that the list node and the data it represents belong to the same allocated on the correct node/memcg. While this assumption is valid for existing slab objects LRU such as dentries and inodes, it is undocumented, and rather inflexible for certain potential list_lru users (such as the upcoming zswap shrinker and the THP shrinker). It has caused us a lot of issues during our development. This patch changes list_lru interface so that the caller must explicitly specify numa node and memcg when adding and removing objects. The old list_lru_add() and list_lru_del() are renamed to list_lru_add_obj() and list_lru_del_obj(), respectively. It also extends the list_lru API with a new function, list_lru_putback, which undoes a previous list_lru_isolate call. Unlike list_lru_add, it does not increment the LRU node count (as list_lru_isolate does not decrement the node count). list_lru_putback also allows for explicit memcg and NUMA node selection. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20231130194023.4102148-1-nphamcs@gmail.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20231130194023.4102148-2-nphamcs@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Nhat Pham Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner Acked-by: Johannes Weiner Tested-by: Bagas Sanjaya Cc: Chris Li Cc: Dan Streetman Cc: Domenico Cerasuolo Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Muchun Song Cc: Roman Gushchin Cc: Seth Jennings Cc: Shakeel Butt Cc: Shuah Khan Cc: Vitaly Wool Cc: Yosry Ahmed Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton

mm: list_lru: Update kernel documentation to follow the requirements

2023-12-11T00:51:52+00:00

kernel-doc is not happy about documentation in list_lru.h: list_lru.h:90: warning: Function parameter or member 'lru' not described in 'list_lru_add' list_lru.h:90: warning: Excess function parameter 'list_lru' description in 'list_lru_add' list_lru.h:90: warning: No description found for return value of 'list_lru_add' list_lru.h:103: warning: Function parameter or member 'lru' not described in 'list_lru_del' list_lru.h:103: warning: Excess function parameter 'list_lru' description in 'list_lru_del' list_lru.h:103: warning: No description found for return value of 'list_lru_del' list_lru.h:116: warning: No description found for return value of 'list_lru_count_one' list_lru.h:168: warning: No description found for return value of 'list_lru_walk_one' list_lru.h:185: warning: No description found for return value of 'list_lru_walk_one_irq' Fix the documentation accordingly. While at it, fix the references to the parameters in functions inside the long descriptions, on which the above script is not complaining (yet?). Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20231123172320.2434780-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Rasmus Villemoes Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton

mm: list_lru: rename list_lru_per_memcg to list_lru_memcg

2022-03-22T22:57:03+00:00

The name of list_lru_memcg was occupied before and became free since last commit. Rename list_lru_per_memcg to list_lru_memcg since the name is brief. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220228122126.37293-16-songmuchun@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Muchun Song Cc: Alex Shi Cc: Anna Schumaker Cc: Chao Yu Cc: Dave Chinner Cc: Fam Zheng Cc: Jaegeuk Kim Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Kari Argillander Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Qi Zheng Cc: Roman Gushchin Cc: Shakeel Butt Cc: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Trond Myklebust Cc: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Wei Yang Cc: Xiongchun Duan Cc: Yang Shi Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

mm: list_lru: replace linear array with xarray

2022-03-22T22:57:03+00:00

If we run 10k containers in the system, the size of the list_lru_memcg->lrus can be ~96KB per list_lru. When we decrease the number containers, the size of the array will not be shrinked. It is not scalable. The xarray is a good choice for this case. We can save a lot of memory when there are tens of thousands continers in the system. If we use xarray, we also can remove the logic code of resizing array, which can simplify the code. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove unused local] Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220228122126.37293-13-songmuchun@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Muchun Song Cc: Alex Shi Cc: Anna Schumaker Cc: Chao Yu Cc: Dave Chinner Cc: Fam Zheng Cc: Jaegeuk Kim Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Kari Argillander Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Qi Zheng Cc: Roman Gushchin Cc: Shakeel Butt Cc: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Trond Myklebust Cc: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Wei Yang Cc: Xiongchun Duan Cc: Yang Shi Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

mm: list_lru: rename memcg_drain_all_list_lrus to memcg_reparent_list_lrus

2022-03-22T22:57:03+00:00

The purpose of the memcg_drain_all_list_lrus() is list_lrus reparenting. It is very similar to memcg_reparent_objcgs(). Rename it to memcg_reparent_list_lrus() so that the name can more consistent with memcg_reparent_objcgs(). Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220228122126.37293-12-songmuchun@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Muchun Song Cc: Alex Shi Cc: Anna Schumaker Cc: Chao Yu Cc: Dave Chinner Cc: Fam Zheng Cc: Jaegeuk Kim Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Kari Argillander Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Qi Zheng Cc: Roman Gushchin Cc: Shakeel Butt Cc: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Trond Myklebust Cc: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Wei Yang Cc: Xiongchun Duan Cc: Yang Shi Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

mm: list_lru: allocate list_lru_one only when needed

2022-03-22T22:57:03+00:00

In our server, we found a suspected memory leak problem. The kmalloc-32 consumes more than 6GB of memory. Other kmem_caches consume less than 2GB memory. After our in-depth analysis, the memory consumption of kmalloc-32 slab cache is the cause of list_lru_one allocation. crash> p memcg_nr_cache_ids memcg_nr_cache_ids = $2 = 24574 memcg_nr_cache_ids is very large and memory consumption of each list_lru can be calculated with the following formula. num_numa_node * memcg_nr_cache_ids * 32 (kmalloc-32) There are 4 numa nodes in our system, so each list_lru consumes ~3MB. crash> list super_blocks | wc -l 952 Every mount will register 2 list lrus, one is for inode, another is for dentry. There are 952 super_blocks. So the total memory is 952 * 2 * 3 MB (~5.6GB). But the number of memory cgroup is less than 500. So I guess more than 12286 containers have been deployed on this machine (I do not know why there are so many containers, it may be a user's bug or the user really want to do that). And memcg_nr_cache_ids has not been reduced to a suitable value. This can waste a lot of memory. Now the infrastructure for dynamic list_lru_one allocation is ready, so remove statically allocated memory code to save memory. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220228122126.37293-11-songmuchun@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Muchun Song Cc: Alex Shi Cc: Anna Schumaker Cc: Chao Yu Cc: Dave Chinner Cc: Fam Zheng Cc: Jaegeuk Kim Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Kari Argillander Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Qi Zheng Cc: Roman Gushchin Cc: Shakeel Butt Cc: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Trond Myklebust Cc: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Wei Yang Cc: Xiongchun Duan Cc: Yang Shi Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds